Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Gender bias in patenting process Open PDF
(2020)
Wang, Y.
;
Yang, Z.
;
Liu, L.
;
Wang, X.
Collaboration among inventors is very important in patenting an invention. Inventors collaborate based on their professional knowledge and experience. Because of the non-disclosure nature of the invention process, it is difficult to test the factors influencing collaboration between inventors, e.g., gender bias. In this study, employing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dataset with 6.64 million patents, we have identified the gender of 4.66 million inventors, including 2.12 million lead inventors and 2.54 million joint inventors. We find that women are underrepresented in the patent collaboration process and that both genders have strong preference for same-gender inventors. Moreover, even in those fields that have equal proportions of male and female inventors, gender bias persists. These results highlight the need to intensify efforts to combat gender bias in the patenting process rather than focusing solely on the lack of equal gender representation in the numerical proportions. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd.
No evidence of citation bias as a determinant of STEM gender disparities in US biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology research Open PDF
(2019)
Thelwall, M.
;
Nevill, T.
The lack of females in many Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in the USA is an ongoing concern, with many initiatives attempting to redress this imbalance. Some life sciences are apparently areas of relatively good practice, with higher proportions of female researchers than most other STEM subjects. This paper assesses gender differences in research contributions to 14 biochemistry, genetics or molecular biology specialisms in the USA 1996–2014/8, seeking evidence of trends in publishing and citation impact that may give insights into female success. With four exceptions (biochemistry, biophysics, biotechnology, and structural biology), the fields achieved or maintained at least 40% female first authors by 2018, with developmental biology and endocrinology both attaining female first author majorities. A regression analysis found close to gender parity overall in citation impact but a small male first author citation advantage in more fields than the opposite: an up to 3% increase in logged citation ratio to the world mean. This was partly due to males first authoring with larger teams. Fields with relatively many females did not favour female-led research with more citations, however. © 2019, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
Digital technology helps remove gender bias in academia Open PDF
(2021)
Fortin, J.
;
Bartlett, B.
;
Kantar, M.
;
Tseng, M.
;
Mehrabi, Z.
Science attempts to be a meritocracy; however, in recent years, there has been increasing evidence for systematic gender bias against women. This bias is present in many metrics commonly used to evaluate scientific productivity, which in turn influences hiring and career success. Here we explore a new metric, the Altmetric Attention Score, and find no evidence of bias across many major journals (Nature, PNAS, PLOS One, New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, and BioRxiv), with equal attention afforded to articles authored by men and women alike. The exception to this rule is the journal Science, which has marked gender bias against women in 2018, equivalent to a mean of 88 more tweets or 11 more news articles and a median of 20 more tweets or 3 more news articles for male than female first authors. Our findings qualify Altmetric, for many types and disciplines of journals, as a potentially unbiased measure of science communication in academia and suggest that new technologies, such as those on which Altmetric is based, might help to democratize academic evaluation. © 2021, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.
A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments Open PDF
(Academic Press Inc., 2017)
Devine, P.G.
;
Forscher, P.S.
;
Cox, W.T.L.
;
Kaatz, A.
;
Sheridan, J.
Addressing the underrepresentation of women in science is a top priority for many institutions, but the majority of efforts to increase representation of women are neither evidence-based nor rigorously assessed. One exception is the gender bias habit-breaking intervention (Carnes et al., 2015), which, in a cluster-randomized trial involving all but two departmental clusters (N = 92) in the 6 STEMM focused schools/colleges at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led to increases in gender bias awareness and self-efficacy to promote gender equity in academic science departments and perceptions of a more positive departmental climate. Following this initial success, the present study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation. Whereas the proportion of women hired by control departments remained stable over time, the proportion of women hired by intervention departments increased by an estimated 18 percentage points (OR = 2.23, dOR = 0.34). Though the preregistered analysis did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.07), the study has a hard upper limit on statistical power, as the cluster-randomized trial has a maximum sample size of 92 departmental clusters. These findings, however, have undeniable practical significance for the advancement of women in science, and provide promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.

PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results